Gini Dietrich

PR Crisis for Skittles In Wake of Controversial Teen Shooting

By: Gini Dietrich | April 4, 2012 | 
221

I’ve been watching a different kind of PR crisis unfold with great interest – that of Skittles.

Skittles, you say? Taste the fruity rainbow, Skittles?

Yes, Skittles.

Because of the symbolism of the candy (Trayvon Martin was carrying only Skittles and a drink when he was shot), college student governments are buying it in bulk and reselling it to raise money for his family.

The candy has been piled into makeshift memorials, crammed into the pockets of thousands of people who have shown up at rallies in his name, and sent to the Sanford Police Department to protest the lack of an arrest in the case.

Sales are soaring for Skittles maker, Wrigley. But its new level of fame is quickly becoming a PR crisis that is threatening to hurt the company, more than it helps.

I know, I know. Sales are up. Everyone is talking about them. So what’s the problem?

According to the New York Times, people are calling for donations and giving back to communities where “murder based on stereotypes is a reoccurring theme.”

On social media sites like Twitter, people are suggesting that Wrigley is profiting greatly from the tragedy and should donate money made since Trayvon’s death to the family or causes that would help with racial reconciliation or underprivileged communities. Some African-Americans are even asking people to stop buying Skittles until the company gets more involved in the case and donates money.

So, just like we discussed yesterday where Etch A Sketch took advantage of a Romney senior aide’s gaffe and is selling more toys, Wrigley now has the opposite problem. Trayvon had Skittles in his pocket when he was killed and protestors are using the candy as a symbol for his death.

Clearly going the route of capitalizing on this opportunity is not the right thing to do. Is donating some of the increased profits the right thing to do? Is staying silent and watching it all unfold the right thing to do?

As communication professionals, we’re trained throughout our careers to deal with things such as someone dying from eating your product or someone being killed on the job. But this one? This one isn’t a case study you find very often, nor is it a scenario you typically include in your crisis management plan.

This is a crisis where “I”m sorry” doesn’t work. It’s a crisis where people on the social networks are telling you how to run your company. And, if you don’t donate money, you come off as the big, capitalist company, which could hurt you in the long-run.

Seemingly the “right” thing to do is donate money, but I’m not sure that’s the answer either.

What do you think?

About Gini Dietrich


Gini Dietrich is the founder and CEO of Arment Dietrich, an integrated marketing communications firm. She is the author of Spin Sucks, co-author of Marketing in the Round, and co-host of Inside PR. She also is the lead blogger at Spin Sucks and is the founder of Spin Sucks Pro.

  • ginidietrich

    @ACoplin I’m curious, too!

  • A really tough call. It’s one of those situations where you had nothing to do with the story, and yet you have become a big part of the story, even though you have done nothing wrong. 
     
    And unlike Etch a Sketch, they clearly aren’t trying to capitalize on this. What bothers me is that in some ways they are being held hostage by activists. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you cave in and give, you set what could be a dangerous precedent. If you don’t give, you are the object of scorn. 
     
    Not a situation I’d want to be in…

    • ginidietrich

       @KenMueller That’s exactly it – they’re being held hostage by the activists. I really don’t know what I’d advise them to do. I’ve worked A LOT of crisis – many where people have died – but I’ve never seen something like this. It’s not even like the Tylenol case, which wasn’t their fault, but they pulled product from the shelves. This is almost the direct opposite.

  • There is no easy answer. The company’s only involvement was Trayvon Martin was carrying the candy.
     
    Classic mob mentality. People decided, out of protest, to buy Skittles. Now they seem to want Skittles to donate the money. Skittles did nothing to try to take advantage of the situation.
     
    A donation by Skittles would be an act of kindness, compassion and generosity. At the same time, it would be, I think, a sign of weakness before what I call the “social mob.” You can crowd source a lot of things, but how to fundamentally run your company isn’t one of them.
     
    I’ll be curious to see how this all plays out.

    • ginidietrich

       @ClayMorgan I’m with you! I see both sides, too. I really don’t know what I’d advise them to do. I keep going back and forth. We tell clients not to give in to the vocal minority, as long as they stay on strategy. Perhaps it’s the same advice here.

  • higginbomb

    It’s a tough call because Wrigley/Skittles has to be careful not to take sides. Their product was only tangentially involved in this event. The question is, to what cause would Wrigley donate? Donating money to an organization that promotes racial equality only reinforces the perception (I call it a perception because it hasn’t been proved, not because I’m a skeptic) that race was involved in the unfortunate outcome of the event.
     
    Really, I think Wrigley needs to wait this out a bit. Perhaps an answer as to the correct path forward will become clear when there is more clarity in the case. Until then, any course of action would just be a guess.

    •  @higginbomb I agree. I think waiting a bit is smart, because some of the latest news that is coming out, seems to indicate there is clearly another side to the story. As tragic as this is, we may never know what really happened.

    • ginidietrich

       @higginbomb I almost never recommend a wait and see strategy in a crisis, but I think you’re right – that may be the answer in this case.

  • thebestjeremy

    @Inkling_Media that’s a load of BS. why should Skittles be held responsible in any way, or be pressured into donating? People are so lame.

  • thebestjeremy

    @Inkling_Media it’s not their fault people are buying up Skittle like mad, because of some deranged connection they are choosing to make.

  • thebestjeremy

    @Inkling_Media I will defend Skittles to the death, as they are my favorite candy, ever. They have earned my loyalty with their delciousness

    • Inkling_Media

      @thebestjeremy i agree. i think activists are holding them hostage, thru no fault of their own

  • ginidietrich

    @higginbomb Here too! Thanks!

  • ginidietrich

    @higginbomb OMG! This made me LOL: My high school calculus teacher couldn’t pronounce my name, thus birthing my Twitter handle.

    • higginbomb

      @ginidietrich Thanks! With a handle like mine, I felt some explanation was necessary…

      • ginidietrich

        @higginbomb It’s very funny! Memorable.

  • Nylons

    @ginidietrich @spinsucks Skittles doesn’t have a crisis. Humanity has the crisis.

    • ginidietrich

      @Nylons Oh it’s a crisis for Skittles. Activists are extremely vocal in “not making Skittles rich” so they should donate their profits.

      • Nylons

        @ginidietrich I think if we are focused on the candy in any way it, sadly, illustrates my point. it’s misguided. I feel bad for the rainbow.

        • ginidietrich

          @Nylons Totally agree with you there. It’s sad people are making it a case of a company making money from a tragedy

  • CubbyDF

    Chances are, Wrigley will relent and donate to some cause (my guess is a public park with a memorial garden) and hold a press conference to announce it with Al Sharpton as the featured speaker.  If they make a donation and only do a news release to publicize it they’ll be skewered for trying to capitalize on the death of Trayvon Martin.  If a figure like Sharpton gives his seal of approval then it is unlikely Wrigley will have to dodge any flaming arrows.
     
    Higginbomb is right.  They should wait it out and see what happens. They may do themselves more harm than good by wading into the controversy.   Regardless, the P.C. Police will probably get their way.  

    • ginidietrich

       @CubbyDF Is it bad this made me laugh out loud? You’re right in that they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It’s not a position I’d want to be in.

      • CubbyDF

         @ginidietrich No, it is silly, but not that far fetched.  And if I’m right, I shall gloat openly on this forum.  🙂  Maybe Wrigley and Jesse Jackson will team up and form the Taste the Rainbow Coalition. 🙂 

        • ginidietrich

           @CubbyDF If it happens, I am going to tell everyone you were right!

  • laneyfitz

    @ginidietrich that’s just crazy!

    • ginidietrich

      @laneyfitz Isn’t it? I feel badly for them.

      • laneyfitz

        @ginidietrich so do I. People like to blow things out of whack all the time. It literally makes me mad!

        • ginidietrich

          @laneyfitz The sense of entitlement is what drives me crazy. Have I ever told you my sister’s name is Laney? I think that when I see you.

        • laneyfitz

          @ginidietrich you haven’t 🙂 haha…I hope she’s nice to you! Haha

        • ginidietrich

          @laneyfitz Well, she’s my sister. So it depends. 🙂

        • laneyfitz

          @ginidietrich I hear ya 😉

  • Ewww, what a uncomfortable position.  I really dont know what we would do (glad I dont have to find out). I agree with @KenMueller below, being held hostage by the activists is unfair.  They are really damned if the do, damned if they dont. 
     
    Essentially these same activist created the problem for Wrigley. Maybe instead of buying all those Skittles they shouldve donated the money to the families or a cause in Trayvon Martin’s name? They chose to buy the Skittles and drive up Wrigley’s profit, Wrigley did not use it as a sales ploy. Shouldnt the activist be in the hot seat for all the waste they have created?  That is going to be a massive waste of product and consumer cash, too right?

    • ginidietrich

       @sydcon_mktg  @KenMueller I don’t know that it’s a massive waste of product or cash. They’re buying the candy and then selling to raise money for the family. I appreciate that. And they’re using it as a symbol for his death. I also appreciate that. It’s definitely a blip in sales. So do you donate or not? I don’t know.

      •  @ginidietrich  @KenMueller In regards to “wasted product” I meant the piles of skittles at makeshift memorials. The money spent on those bags of Skittles isnt raising any money for the family. As a symbol yes.  But ultimately that symbol was purchased with cash that couldve been donated just like they want Wrigley to donate.  I guess what I am trying to say is that the activists should be putting their money where the mouth is and donate versus spending money on the product/symbol then demanding Wrigley donate the funds.

        • ginidietrich

           @sydcon_mktg  @KenMueller Ah yes – good point.

  • Sometimes activists are their own worse enemies – their zeal sends them careening way off course and companies like Wrigley become unintended casualties. Sad situation, really. 

    • ginidietrich

       @jasonkonopinski “Zeal” is a good word. It is a sad situation. I am very curious to see how Wrigley handles it.

  • Really tough spot for Wrigleys. We still don’t know if Trayvon attacked his shooter first or not. Until we know we are all making wild assumptions. I was at the gym that has many TVs. Fox News was on next to a basketball game I was watching. They had 5 white people discussing whether this case was being used by liberals to their advantage (that was the subject of conversation they kept flashing).
     
    Wrigley’s should use the profits from the sales and donate to something in the middle ground in my opinion. But we have no idea what the extra sales are. I bet they are a blip. Which means the PR issue is outsized to their profits I am pretty sure. But do you risk a boycott of your brands over this?

    • ginidietrich

       @HowieSPM The weird thing is they’re not boycotting. At all. But there are some groups who are saying, “If we’re going to make you rich, you should donate.” I’m trying to put aside my personal feelings of how entitled that makes them sound and really look at it solely from a PR perspective. I really don’t know what I’d advise them if I were sitting in the board room with them. Unless, of course, I had access to more information that helped make a decision.

      •  @ginidietrich Want to know who had to deal with this? Old Spice. They used all those celebs for their first twitter to you tube campaign. The Alyssa Milano said you need to donate $100k to the Humane Society for use of my name with your brand. Notice their second campaign targeted no stars and fell flat with Fabio.
         
        So yes I see the issue here. The difference is Skittles did nothing on their own. Old Spice did.

        • ginidietrich

           @HowieSPM Yeah…I don’t think it’s the same. Old Spice created that on their own. 

  • This case is definitely being played out in the media and the ‘race card’ is certainly a big part of it. I’m trying to withhold judgment and let the court’s decide but I thought this was an interesting article in the paper how media has the ability and can slant public opinion. http://www.theledger.com/article/20120330/NEWS/120339942
     
    Sorry I can’t weigh in on Skittles or branding or anything else intelligent but I had to make sure I put my two cents in, because it’s all about me anyway, right? 
     
    Hola…….

    • ginidietrich

       @bdorman264 One of the best case studies about American media is Amanda Knox. When you talk to anyone in Italy, they’re convinced she is guilty. And anyone in the U.S. is convinced she’s innocent. I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but what’s fascinating is how it was played out in our media. They made her look innocent. 

      •  @ginidietrich  @bdorman264 Bill I know you are guilty. I watched that video of you in the Library with the Candlestick.

        •  @HowieSPM  @ginidietrich But it was really grainy and a positive ID was virtually impossible………

        • @bdorman264 @HowieSPM @ginidietrich Virtually impossible for a mere mortal, perhaps… But a superhero with super clarifying rays, case closed. You done it, Bill.

        •  @SociallyGenius  @bdorman264  @HowieSPM  @ginidietrich Brilliant!

  • KelleeMagee

    While I agree it’s too early to make any call on this, “hope it dies down” is a not a strong strategy. I would be building options now that move forward without looking driven by the social mob. Skittles may actually have been given a gift here and have a unique opportunity to make a statement about the diversity angle that is so obviously a part of this case. I might suggest taking time to carefully craft a message referencing the inclusive ‘Rainbow’ element of their brand and make a symbolic donation to an organization with a strong mission for building cross cultural and interracial understanding. (I hesitate to suggest the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition because of the lightning rod nature of Rev. Jackson, but…) It could even be a product donation if the organization is equipped to accept that for resale and grassroots awareness raising. NO, they didn’t create this firestorm, but their brand seems tailor made to respond strongly and authentically to emphasize a hopeful commitment to creating a world where all people can live together in harmony in our communities ….   (just as all colors come together to create a taste sensation in the bag of skittles  —  forgive the superhokey ending.)

    • ginidietrich

       @KelleeMagee I really love the Rainbow connection between being one thing to all. I certainly don’t think they should hope it dies down and not do anything. From what I’ve heard, they’re definitely doing what you’re suggesting here and are thinking through scenarios to bring to the public. I can see headlines from your suggestion, just like I can from the other suggestions. If they stay on strategy for their business and not stray because of the vocal activists, they’ll be fine. If they decide to donate and do so because it fits their vision, they’ll be fine. I don’t know what is the right answer. 

      • KelleeMagee

         @ginidietrich As always, your questions are thought provoking: A strong STATEMENT (sans donation) may do the trick if it’s well crafted. I agree, the only way to do a donation is if there’s a strong corporate mission/vision tie (and I don’t know enough about that to advise). I do think that some of their product is currently resold by charities/fundraisers, that may be a product donation (vs. cash) worth exploring. Thanks for posting such an interesting ‘thinker’ question; will be interesting to watch the follow up!  

        • ginidietrich

           @KelleeMagee I was thinking the donation of candy angle, too. They should invite us in to the discussions around this, don’t you think?

  • PattiRoseKnight

    This makes me want to buy Skittes and I don’t even like them.  I don’t think the brand should suffer because of protesters.  But I see what you are saying and how it could pan out.  Mike like Skittles – maybe I’ll buy them more often just to help out a Wrigley product in pre-crisis.

    • ginidietrich

       @PattiRoseKnight I love Skittles! Buy them and I’ll eat them. 

      •  @ginidietrich  @PattiRoseKnight Mmmmm Skittles. 

      •  @ginidietrich  @PattiRoseKnight How can someone NOT LIKE Skittles…Tast the Rainbow!  LOL!

  • edwardmbury1

    Let me pose this question: Would there be demands (or extortion) to have the manufacturer “donate” money to some kind of cause if the individual involved in this situation had gone out to purchase a different kind of consumer product?  Say beer or wine or spirits? 

    • ginidietrich

       @edwardmbury1 I don’t know…what do you think?

  • TravisMClemens

    Great post today, Gini! I really like that you threw it open to the community, and I’ve absolutely LOVED reading the discussion on what everybody would do. Thanks for setting the stage for great PR learning!

    • ginidietrich

       @TravisMClemens So what would you do??

      • TravisMClemens

         @ginidietrich  I have no idea, to be completely honest. I think they better do something, obviously, but getting dragged into the racial undertones involved in this tragedy is a bad idea. … Reaching out to the family and covering funeral expenses or establishing a scholarship in his memory would be a nice gesture. BUT, I think Wrigley’s would have to avoid a lot of publicity for it. The best way for word to get out would be for the family to mention it and how grateful they are. … It’s a sticky situation.

        • ginidietrich

           @TravisMClemens I even waffle on helping the family. It seems like the right thing to do, from a human being perspective, but is it the right precedent to set? I don’t know.

        •  @ginidietrich  @TravisMClemens I realy love that she was going to let you off the hook with the one comment, Travis. LOL!! 

  • russ_dean

    I agree its a tough spot for Wrigley, but it seems like there is no shortage of people making money from this tragedy. Hoodies, commemorative T-shirts, etc. are all being sold around this event (many probably raking in as much as Wrigley) but yet there’s no outcry to stop buying hoodies.

    • flemingsean

       @russ_dean Surely there’s a key difference, in that the Skittles were bought prior to the murder and have nothing to do with the murder..?  This really has nothing to do with Wrigley.  They are being dragged into it by opportunists.  It’s quite ugly.

      • ginidietrich

         @flemingsean  @russ_dean Yeah…I agree the difference is in that Skittles are being used as the symbol for the tragedy. They’re being used in the memorials, given out at protests, and even used to raise money for the family. The other things – hoodies, shirts – aren’t being used in the same way.

  • BillyMcKrindle

    Stop buying Skittles? Are people really saying that? Here’s an idea… stop buying guns.

    • ginidietrich

       @BillyMcKrindle No, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re going to keep buying them, but think Wrigley should donate some of their profits because they’re “getting rich” from this tragedy.

  • This is a really interesting and quite sad situation. Thanks, Gini for sharing it with us. 
     
    I’m torn, here. I think that Wrigley shouldn’t have to donate or take action because they did not create this. But, then I think about the consequences of them staying silent- which I don’t think is the right decision either. As customers, we are very frustrated when we seek reaction and conversation with brands and they ignore it/stay silent, so I think if Wrigley does that they will have bad repercussions. 
     
    I think a statement would be a great middle ground. I would love to hear something like “Although we appreciate the business and all our customers, buying skittles does not help the cause – take a look around your communities and invest time and effort into helping racial reconciliation and underprivileged communities. That will make a lasting difference” > Obviously it would need polish, but I think that might be a good start. However, as a business professional you never want to turn away business and risk losing customers.
     
    See? I’m torn. 🙂

    • ginidietrich

       @courtney petty I’m torn, too! LOL! They did make a statement. Hang on…I’ll find it.
       
      They said: “It’s inappropriate to get involved or comment further as we would never wish for our actions to be perceived as an attempt of commercial gain following this tragedy.” 
       
      They’re going to take a hit no matter what.  If they do decide to donate, people will say it’s not enough…and they’ll be seen as giving in to the vocal activists. If they speak publicly, people will say they’re capitalizing on it.
       
      Plus they have the legal issues to think about. They can’t make a public statement without it being played in court. Perhaps all of the profits from this blip will have to go to legal counsel instead.

      •  @ginidietrich  @courtney petty I actually think that that statement from Wrigley is appropriate. They are a candy maker and nothing more. To ask or expect them to be more than what they are because a small minority decided to focus on the Skittles part of this rather the larger picture is wrong.

        •  @Anthony_Rodriguez  @ginidietrich I agree! I think their statement is appropriate for the situation – although I’m sure it’s not enough for some people. But, that’s the price you pay… can’t please everyone!
           
          Just an unfortunate situation for them. They got dragged into the controversy and they will pay for it no matter what move they make. Kind of glad to see they aren’t just giving in and donating though! 

        • ginidietrich

           @courtney petty  @Anthony_Rodriguez “A small minority decided to focus on the Skittles part of this rather the larger picture is wrong.” Amen.

        • nscibetta

           @Anthony_Rodriguez I agree. Wrigley is an unwilling participant in this situation and by getting involved would send a host of wrong messages, both to those who are brand loyal and those who are not.  This unfortunate situation is quickly becoming highly politicized and not one where a brand would want/should get involved. Hopefully level heads will prevail.

  • ginidietrich

    @SmallArmyAgency What do you think?

  • ginidietrich

    @babasyd Oh way.

  • jenzings

    What a tough spot to be in. I’d be very leery of making any kinds of donations: as stated by others below, regardless of the amount it wouldn’t be enough for some. It would also establish a horrible precedent.
     
    Protesters chose to buy Skittles as a demonstration of a type of solidarity with Trayvon Martin. The company didn’t endorse, advocate, or push this. They just sold Skittles. To be angry with the company for the results of the protesters’ own actions is silly. They don’t want the company to profit off of this? Easy solution. Stop buying the Skittles. Use pictures, or staple the empty packages to signs. Whatever.
     
    Bullying the company into making a donation is ridiculous.
     
    A statement should be more than enough. I hope this silliness passes soon.

    • ginidietrich

       @jenzings It’s pretty indicative of our instant gratification, entitled culture, isn’t it? 

  • sbpemberton2012

    Wrigley should do a little more investigation to see if Trayvon had a particular interest or activity he (or his family) was involved in or supported in some way–say, Boys and Girls Clubs. Then, Wrigley could work with the family to further that interest or activity as a “neutral” but worthwhile cause with donations or other kinds of support.  If that’s a possibility, Wrigley will be “doing the right thing” without inadvertently becoming associated with an explosive issue unrelated to its products.

    • ginidietrich

       @sbpemberton2012 That’s a great idea!

  • Hmmm. I would ask the team at Wrigley if there is a way we can support or harness the fundraising energy. Without doing a bunch of digging, I just wonder if they have a platform where they can help others accomplish what they want. For example, if they have a blog or online network or any outlet, is there a champion of the cause (outside of the company) who wants to hop on and “take the mic?” 
     
    I would advise them to keep an arm’s length away from the situation exactly for the reasons you mention: They don’t want to appear to be capitalizing on it any way. In fact, I think their statement which you mention in the comment below is a great start. 
     
    I don’t see why on earth they should be coerced into donating money to the cause. 
     
    Interesting dilemma indeed.

    • ginidietrich

       @Lisa Gerber But, as you know from some of our client experiences in the past year, people panic and start to listen to the criticism. I’m not sure who their agency is (Ketchum maybe?), but I can imagine they’re getting pretty solid advice.

      •  @ginidietrich yep. absolutely. I was speaking in a perfect PR world where clients listen to their PR counsel. A girl can dream. 

        • ginidietrich

           @Lisa Gerber LOL!

  • ahynes1

    John F. Kennedy once said, “When written in Chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters.One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity”.  It seems as if there is too little focus on the danger, and not enough on the opportunity.
     
    Like many corporations, Wrigley’s has a commitment to social responsibility.http://www.wrigley.com/global/principles-in-action/people.aspx
     
    “We aim to make a difference by respecting diversity and encouraging inclusion, consistently improving our health and safety practices, providing volunteer opportunities for our associates and through philanthropy with real impact.”Wrigley should focus on this and highlight efforts to help make communities safer.  “Any kid should be able to walk safely to a neighborhood store.”
     
    Use the opportunity to build the brand’s Social Responsibility cred. 

    • ginidietrich

       @ahynes1 Great point…so how would you advise them to do that without it a) looking like they’re giving in to the activists, b) staying neutral to the politics of this, and c) staying out of legal trouble?

      • ahynes1

         @ginidietrich  I believe that focusing on neighborhood safety can be presented as a neutral issue.  Everyone wants safer neighborhoods, whether they be members of Neighborhood Watch, or parents of black youth.  It is a common ground, and by focusing on the common ground, they aren’t giving into the activists, they are staying neutral to the politics, and are probably least likely to end up in legal problems.If I were there, I would probably look at putting money into grants to neighborhood organizations that are working towards this.  I’d probably try to do a little branding with this, something like the “Safer Rainbow Initiative”.
         
        I’d probably do it as part of the Wrigley Company Foundation as part of their “sustainable local initiatives… to improve communities around the world”
         
        http://www.wrigley.com/global/principles-in-action/foundation.aspx
         
         

        •  @ahynes1  @ginidietrich  I’m not a PR pro or anything even remotely similar, but I was going to suggest the same thing. Perhaps say something along the lines of “Actually, we’ve been doing our share of CR for nth years via this or that program. Since we’re also doing our Rainbow thing, perhaps (complaining) can tag along. We could use the help.” Something like that, anyway. 🙂

  • MolliMegasko

    I think waiting it out is important here.  We don’t know where this is going and Skittles should not try and profit from it.  (Any sort of move could look like they are even if they are not.)  I think the statement they made was PERFECT.  Taste that rainbow.
     

    • ginidietrich

       @MolliMegasko Mmmmmm…Skittles.

  • KimberlyTaylor

    @ginidietrich I actually agreed w/ @donny_deutsch when the Skittles topic came up on @todayshow last week. Doing nothing is best right now.

  • VickiDay

    I would suggest getting involved in fundraising or donation – or maybe earmarking some of this perceived profit for micro financing on youth initiatives in areas where these kinds of deaths have occurred – getting involved with the community via his parents and family – maybe setting up a memorial fund in his name  

    • ginidietrich

       @VickiDay And it looks like there are more deaths like this, that haven’t been publicized, as the news reports show. Perhaps that’s a good compromise, though I’m not convinced they even need to compromise.

  • ThePaulSutton

    @ginidietrich More to the point, Gini, what would YOU do? :o)

  • pocojuan

    @ginidietrich Th KKK held a Skittles & Sweet Tea Celebration last wkend – Thousands of protesters wore hoodies had Sweet Tea & ate Skittles

  • I think that Skittles is a peripheral and unwilling participant in this incident. We’re still not sure exactly what the facts are, and most of the movement is based on emotion, righteous though it may be given what we THINK happened. And in all likelihood, what we think happened is probably what happened. But does that mean Wrigley’s should be forced to make donations? And if so, who do these donations go to?  Under such intense scrutiny, someone’s bound to come up with a reason why whatever organization they pick would be the wrong one. It would be one thing if Skittles was actively participating in getting people to buy Skittles because of what happened, but they aren’t responsible for getting people to buy their product. I think they should emphasize the programs they’re already involved in.  I think if I were them, I’d release a statement acknowledging what was happening, and that they’re having conversations about what to do next, then make a list of things they were already involved in before the incident occurred that people can volunteer for or donate to in the meantime.

    • ginidietrich

       @Tinu While it’s not anywhere near the same, I am reminded of Gap, when they crowdsourced their logo. Rather than staying on task, they gave in to a very vocal blogosphere who, as it turns out, was less than one percent of their customer base. Just because the activists are vocal doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

  • M_Koehler

    Not a good place for the folks at Wrigley to be in. They truly are d*mned if they do d*mned if they don’t. I think the statement they released is appropriate but most people won’t believe them. They certainly didn’t ask for people to use their product as a form of protest. Would the added weight of a corporation supporting the protests to get the police to do something help? Probably, but do we want for profit corporations stepping in and leading the charge on social issues like this? That frankly scares me.

    • ginidietrich

       @M_Koehler It’s not so much that they’re leading the charge on the protests. It’s more that those who are think Wrigley is benefitting from their using Skittles as the symbol so they want the company to donate some of those extra profits to underprivileged youths. I’m not convinced it isn’t an entitlement thing. 

  • efrainortizjr

    In this case, it is unfortunate for Wrigley, they are caught in the middle of a situation which they did not create for themselves. I believe the right thing for them to do at this point is to attempt, at a minimum, to show what they do or have done positively for the community. Does it make it right? Wrigley didn’t go out and begin to capitalize from this. Those whom have made it a symbol of Trayvon Martin’s death are actually ,unknowingly, more responsible for the increased profit gains made by Wrigley.

    • ginidietrich

       @efrainortizjr But, just because they have increased profit gains, does that mean they’re not doing the right thing if they don’t donate some of them? How do we know those extra profits don’t have to go to a legal team, now that they’re right in the middle of all of this? It seems like it’s the right thing to do, on the surface, but it also feels like entitlement to me.

  • craigmillertv

    @ginidietrich Odd page behavior. Loads up and then disappears. Tried multiple times.

  • At first blush, I was tempted to say that the Skittles crew should have a heart and give some of the profits back. But no, that’s not the answer. It’s not as if anyone is forcing the mourners to buy the candy, they’re choosing to use it as a tribute. What bothers me is the call to stop buying skittles until they “show me the money.” Those “leaders” are taking the focus away from Trayvon’s cause and turning it into a money grab. That is a worse transgression because they’re the ones who claim to have a vested interest in seeking justice, not seeking dollars

    • jenzings

      I agree with you and will go one further: if Wrigley did contribute in any way, shape or form, whether it be through a donation to the family or any fund/cause/whatever, the precedent is set. All an enterprising leader needs to do in the next situation that is similar (and, regrettably I do not think this will be the last-ever case of this type), is identify any branded component and turn it into a symbol in an attempt to accomplish the same end.
       
      I just don’t see how the company can or should be held to a standard of contributing when they were simply the candy of choice of this teen, in this tragic incident.   @SociallyGenius 

      • jenzings

         @SociallyGenius And wow, that sounds awfully cynical of me. But I think it’s a distinct possibility.

        • @jenzings I think it’s more realism than cynicism considering our money hungry society. Everyone’s trying to get something for nothing… I agree that it would be a dangerous precedence

        • ginidietrich

           @SociallyGenius  @jenzings It’s not cynical because it DOES set an awful precedent. I’m a capitalist at heart. Heck, I own a business. So maybe that’s why it bothers me to have people saying Wrigley owes them something for “making them rich.” Give me a break.

  • Leon

    G’Day Gini,
    I’m forever preaching about the importance of PEC: perception;expectation ; consequences. A very famous performance engineer called Geary Rummler once wrote “Consequences are often the key.”
    He was talking about staff performance. Clearly it applies in other fields. But it’s a little minefield if we’re not careful. 
     
    Managers often ask the question “What’s likely to happen if…..?”  But instead of thinking through the answer they delude themselves into believing that their preferred consequence is the most likely.
     
    There’s not much fun after that.
     
    Best Wishes
     
    Leon

    •  @Leon I learn something new from you all the time: PEC – will totally use that someday, thanks.

    • ginidietrich

       @Leon So, based on PEC then, what would you advise Wrigley to do?

  • Agreeing with @SociallyGenius and @jenzings and well, almost everyone: Caught in the middle here. 
     
    It’s not YET so much a damned either way on the rock, next to the hard place; but it’s got a nice view. I’m siding with @bdorman264  – this is a a media-generated – and perpetuated – ‘crisis.’ Outside the core group of activists, I’m not sure it is. As with so many of these stories, I could ask my F&F – people online everyday – most probably would not have even heard of this ‘big public outcry.’ Lots of businesses and brands make money of a sudden spike in sales via some other event; doesn’t necessarily make them greedy corporate bastards – not like they tripled the price of gas b/c a hurricane was coming 12 states over. Ahem.
     
    Does this mean Skittles dba Wrigley can ignore? No. And as you say, this is the kind of tangent scenario that doesn’t even graze the crisis communications plan except that you are getting 3rd and 4th party mentions of your product, requests and pressure to ‘do something.’ So what should they do? That’s the hard part and for me, it raises more questions.
     
    Do they have a policy on fundraising and 3rd party sales? I know there are bulk packages at the price clubs clearly labeled ‘not for resale’ while others are; if any groups are violating that, do they let it slide? If they deem these legitimate fundraising efforts, how do they acknowledge and/or endorse THIS cause over all of the others using Wrigley products? And what happens when the story changes? Do they already have some policy on corporate donations, maybe through a foundation of some sort? 
     
    Too many unknowns at this point. I think they need to be upfront and honest via all their communications: “We like others are saddened by this tragedy, and offer our support and sympathy to those involved. We appreciate any non-profit using our product yada yada. While we cannot contribute to every solicitation, we are very involved with our community, make X donations via…. this, that, the other.” IDK
     
    They can’t duck and cover, but they cannot and should not give into pressure/blackmail or faux media hype. A challenge to their PR team for sure, FWIW.
     

    • ginidietrich

       @3HatsComm  I’m with you on this, Davina. It reminds me of the Gap issue when they crowdsourced their logo. They caved to the very vocal blogosphere (who hated it) and changed back to their original logo. As it turns out, the very vocal blogosphere represented less than one percent of their customers. That’s why it’s so important to understand strategy, vision, CSR, and all the other things you describe before making a decision on what to do.

  • Add hoodies to 10% of the Skittles in each box?
     
    Hey, if the pro athletes can wear em to make a point…. 
     
     

    • ginidietrich

       @FranchiseKing Just 10%??

      •  @ginidietrich Yes. I don’t think they should push it.

        • ginidietrich

           @FranchiseKing LOL!

  • LaurenPalazzo

    Decided to check twitter for a current #PR crisis to discuss in class. Should have know you would have a good one! @ginidietrich @spinsucks

    • SpinSucks

      @laurenpalazzo @ginidietrich So glad we were able to deliver!

    • ginidietrich

      @LaurenPalazzo Or I can always make one up for you!

  • KellyeCrane

    @JulesMonacelli You bet- thought-provoking stuff from @ginidietrich!

    • ginidietrich

      @KellyeCrane xoxo

      • KellyeCrane

        @ginidietrich 🙂

  • Pingback: Rinse and Repeat « PR Tissue Issues()

  • ginidietrich

    @KOttavio Hiiiiii!

    • KOttavio

      @ginidietrich helloo!

      • ginidietrich

        @KOttavio Whatcha doin?

        • KOttavio

          @ginidietrich workin’ lol you?

        • ginidietrich

          @KOttavio Same. I hit a wall so I don’t wanna anymore

      • danieleagee

        @KOttavio Don’t talk to @ginidietrich, talk to me. Helllllo.

        • KOttavio

          @danieleagee @ginidietrich YOU guys!

        • danieleagee

          @KOttavio @ginidietrich Yes, us. Come see us! Maybe Gini will actually come out then. And if not, we can drink our feelings!

        • ginidietrich

          @danieleagee You! Zip it! @KOttavio

        • ginidietrich

          @danieleagee @KOttavio I’m probably going to see Kate before I see you with all this ridiculous travel

        • danieleagee

          @ginidietrich I only act out because I miss you. I’m like a neglected mistress. Or stepson.

          Let’s stick with mistress.

        • ginidietrich

          @danieleagee I prefer mistress, as well

        • danieleagee

          @ginidietrich Are you in town next Wednesday? The 11th?

        • ginidietrich

          @danieleagee I am not. I’ll be on a plane.

        • MSchechter

          @ginidietrich @danieleagee shes just avoiding you.

        • ginidietrich

          @MSchechter Shhhhh! @danieleagee

        • MSchechter

          @ginidietrich @danieleagee he’s old enough to know the truth, I hear he can even cut his own food now.

        • ginidietrich

          @MSchechter It’s especially fun talking about him when he’s clearly still sleeping @danieleagee

        • MSchechter

          @ginidietrich @danieleagee sleeping or napping. He’s been fussy lately and his schedule is rather erratic…

        • KOttavio

          @ginidietrich come see meeee! @danieleagee

        • ginidietrich

          @KOttavio Well you know, there are more of us in Chicago. So you should come here @danieleagee

        • KOttavio

          @ginidietrich once I empty my bank account in Italy for the bro’s wedding, I will start saving up for a Chi-town trip. 🙂 @danieleagee

        • danieleagee

          @MSchechter @ginidietrich Can’t a brother have a morning meeting and not come back to sleeping accusations? #sigh

        • MSchechter

          @danieleagee @ginidietrich Looks like it is somebody’s nap time…

        • ginidietrich

          @KOttavio Forget Chicago. I’m going to Italy with you!

        • ginidietrich

          @danieleagee @MSchechter Please. We know better.

        • MSchechter

          @ginidietrich @danieleagee If by morning meeting you mean the recurring dream with the unicorn then yes, we believe you.

        • KOttavio

          @ginidietrich hehe sono dotati!

        • danieleagee

          @KOttavio Don’t you need a cabana boy to come along to Italy?

        • danieleagee

          @MSchechter @ginidietrich It’s a liger, thank you very much.

        • ginidietrich

          @KOttavio GELATO!

  • ginidietrich

    @Lockstep It’s funny there are so many comments, yet no one agrees on what to do

    • Lockstep

      @ginidietrich That’s what makes it such an interesting conversation!

      • ginidietrich

        @Lockstep It’s really fun, isn’t it??

  • LeanneHeller

    @myleftone now I want skittles. Curse you and your insidious ways.

    • myleftone

      @LeanneHeller no no no no no you’re just helping them capitalize – those greedy corporate bastids!

      • LeanneHeller

        @myleftone whatever, taste the rainbow.

        • myleftone

          @LeanneHeller M&Ms are safer tho. They make friends!

    • myleftone

      @LeanneHeller BTW TweetDeck – I uses it. So I’ll be twittering like a boss.

  • karlgibson

        I think that most  people following this story are much more concerned with the public safety of our country’s youth and whether the shooter in the Martin murder will be arrested. I can honestly say that between social media, my own news org I’m at, people on the street, comment boards- I have not heard one person ask ‘What are the makers of Skittles going to do with this sales blitz!?’
     
        Whatever Wrigley does, it should be private and discussed with their counsel first. Like any corporation, they can fund any charitable initiatives, scholarships or programs that they choose if they choose to.
     
       Part of what made this such a huge global sadness is commonality: human beings of all races and ages like Skittles candy. Wrigley needn’t politicize or kowtow to anyone right now, especially in the wake of such raw emotion and worldwide momentum. If Wrigley opts to use or earmark any portion of their surging non-forecast profits to *any* public works then they’ll look amazing.  But for anyone to take a stand and demand that Wrigley earmark profits would be an insipid move.  The consumer has the choice whether to buy any product and I don’t think Wrigley’s profits are the crux of this case.
     
       As for the NYT snippet up there, as a former employee of the NYT Group, I’d say the assertion that “some African-Americans” are calling for a moratorium on Skittles sales is laughably overblown. “Some” – I’d like to know how many? I’m sure it’s a miniscule number and shouldn’t be used to obfuscate the human connection behind the tragedy of this unfolding case . Skittles didn’t shoot an unarmed minor and on that we all can agree.

    • ginidietrich

       @karlgibson You’re very right. And I agree it’s ridiculous this is even a topic of conversation. But I am fascinated by the turn of events that has pulled an innocent company into the conversation. As a communication pro, it’s difficult to separate my personal feelings (which mirror what you’ve said) with what they should do professionally. 

      • karlgibson

         @ginidietrich I agree with you also and I think it’s definitely something that anyone in a public profession or working for a corporation has to consider. It’s a huge ‘what would you do?’ question. I read all of the comments here and there’s so much to draw on. I tried to think of other unplanned PR blitzes of the past (i.e. Three Mile Island coinciding with Columbia Pictures’ “The China Syndrome” in 1979).. Amazing to think of the solidarity and emotion youth have with Skittles for now beyond anything related to candy.

        • ginidietrich

           @karlgibson And the re-release of Titanic when the Costa Concordia sank. Not the same level as Three Mile Island, but we’re surrounded with the unexpected.

        • karlgibson

           @ginidietrich Ah, I knew I was missing one! Exactly!

  • karlgibson

    .@AmyVernon .@KOttavio .@ginidietrich Thanks for the link on the ‘PR Crisis for Skittles’ debate. I was glad to add my comment!

    • AmyVernon

      @karlgibson yay! 🙂 Insanity. Linsanity? Skinsanity?

    • ginidietrich

      @karlgibson This made me LOL: ‘What are the makers of Skittles going to do with this sales blitz!?’

      • karlgibson

        @ginidietrich Ha! Well we know someone will probably ask sooner or later. I really enjoyed your piece & participating today.

        • ginidietrich

          @karlgibson I really enjoyed your comments. We should find a topic we disagree on and debate it via a blog post. I like your brain.

        • karlgibson

          @ginidietrich Thank you. I’ll be reading and following your work!

  • AmyVernon

    @karlgibson great comment, too. 🙂

    • karlgibson

      @AmyVernon Thanks, Amy! Lived in Florida for three years in Florida as a teen (shudders). I wonder what the NRA is gonna do as a ‘brand’!?

      • AmyVernon

        @karlgibson I did 6 years in SFla. But as a journo, which is far more fun. 🙂

  • lisavielee

    @ginidietrich thanks for sharing Skittles PR story. Interesting to read comments, different POV

    • ginidietrich

      @lisavielee It’s interesting that no one agrees in the comments. Imagine being in the board room!

  • It’s definitely a challenging situation @ginidietrich — I’ve read through most of the comments here and I tend to agree with you in principle. The capitalist in me is a firm believer of Adam Smith’s thinking that a socially responsible company focuses on earning money (because the rest has to occur for that to happen in the long run:  good products, value, service, etc.). 
     
    Yet on the other hand, I think Wrigley’s is in a position where doing nothing is going to cause more problems.  There’s a ton of reporting on this incident and quite frankly, I don’t think we have all the facts yet.  Even so, I think Wrigley’s would do well to find an organization they can work with.  Something not directly related — a big brother/big sister type organization — is what I’m thinking, but there’s probably a better choice too. More than simply throwing money at the problem, but encouraging employees to get involved.  Maybe the CEO adopts a non-profit — something along those lines.
     
    I’d also recommend being a “quiet professional” about it.  It’s something you just do — without a press release or a statement.  Over time the word will get out about what they are doing and will alleviate any short-term concerns.  
     
    That said, Wrigley’s is a large enough company, with such a legacy, I’m sure if we dug a little we’d find it’s likely they probably already have some philanthropic programs.  Nearly every CEO I’ve ever known has a few, and they are indeed quiet about it.   Maybe that’s a story that’s coming as this controversy grows. 

    • ginidietrich

       @Frank_Strong They have a pretty big CSR program. And I know they also donate product. Perhaps there is a combination of doing what you suggest with some of the things they already have in place. I’m very interested in what they do.

  • ginidietrich

    @megmroberts It was a million years ago that I saw you

    • megmroberts

      @ginidietrich I know. I would like to change this soon. I will try to kidnap @rachaelseda and make a reunion happen.

      • ginidietrich

        @megmroberts @rachaelseda OMG! That would be AWESOME!!!

        • rachaelseda

          @ginidietrich @megmroberts YES! Seriously a weekend Chitown trip I’ve been warning @lisagerber that I’m going to crash her apartment!

        • rachaelseda

          @ginidietrich @megmroberts We’re going to make it happen Meg. Lets plan a weekend! cc: @lisagerber

        • lisagerber

          @rachaelseda @ginidietrich @megmroberts OUTSTANDING idea.

        • rachaelseda

          @lisagerber @ginidietrich @megmroberts I know I have a few of them from time to time 😉

  • diannahuff

    @ginidietrich re: Skittle. Is this your blog? Your social share bar keeps getting in the way of reading. It moves on the iPad.

    • ginidietrich

      @diannahuff It moves on the iPad? I’ll find out why. Thanks for letting me know.

      • diannahuff

        @ginidietrich You’re welcome!

  • allenmireles

    @Sprinklr Thanks for the retweet. 🙂

  • ElissaFreeman

    When this edition of Spin Sucks popped into my inbox I thought: that @ginidietrich – she does it again:brings to light a burgeoning issue and creates intelligent conversation around it.
    There are some really great comments here.  Where most companies are called on the carpet for a transgression, Wrigley is hearing the cries of ‘do good’.  I have no doubt they will…but I also hope it will be a sustainable legacy that supports the root of the issue vs a band-aid approach.

    • ginidietrich

       @ElissaFreeman Some of the comments here have suggested they call on their current CSR program to do some good. I have no doubt they will. It just makes me mad they may have to do it because activists are calling for it.

      • ElissaFreeman

         @ginidietrich
         For better or for worse, when social media screams, corporations are brought to their knees. How do we advise our clients/internal people when to respond and when not to (given the severity of the situation, of course)? As the corus of voices continues to grown in this medium, crisis comms will need to get better at addressing this.

        •  @ElissaFreeman  @ginidietrich Much like it always has been, you can’t let the mob dictate what the right thing is to do. All you can do is to ensure you are doing the morally, ethically, and correct thing. Just because someone is loud doesn’t mean they’re right. 
           
          That said, I do think Wrigley CAN make a donation and not come off looking like it is capitalizing on the publicity it has been receiving.

  • TheAaronWade

    @Canadian88 wow super interesting! I hope someone does a case study on this and we can look at how it was handled! @elissapr @spinsucks

  • MattACook

    Working for a company that has grown thanks almost 100% to social media, I can say without a doubt, the right decision is to take some of the profits and do something good and charitable. Doesn’t have to be a big hullabaloo, but make it visible to those who care.
     
    Businesses today own only the quality of their products. Branding is in the hands of the masses. In the end, doing the “good thing” will lead to more customer good will, and possibly more sales. 

    • ginidietrich

       @MattACook I agree doing the right thing seemingly is donating to the cause. But they also have to think about legal issues, where they can’t comment on a murder case. So, if they do anything, they’ll have to be very careful about when, how, and what they communicate, if at all.

      • MattACook

         @ginidietrich Absolutely correct. Sorry, it was late at night and I wrote that idea very quickly. Wrigley should definitely be careful to not make any statements on the murder case. But say, creating some sort of kids’ program not directly related to the case. That could definitely help if the people clamoring for action take notice.

      •  @ginidietrich This might be why they haven’t done anything *yet.* Making a public comment now would through them even more into the spotlight of this case.

  • Pingback: Social Media, Collapsed Time, and Our Reactionary Culture()

  • Pingback: fluidnetwork Leseparade Nr. 10 (KW 14) - Der Medienlotse()

  • SUPER touchy. So many different issues at play here. Race. Politics. Ethics. It’s like one giant hornet’s next waiting to be kicked. What really makes this interesting is that Wrigley, just like Etch-A-Sketch, had nothing to do with the situation. 
     
    The number one thing Wrigley has to do is to NOT seem like it is taking advantage of the situation. To that end, any donation with a loud announcement to ANY organization will come off as grandstanding. I personally like the idea of a donation to some kind of college scholarship foundation since that was in Trayvon’s immediate plans; perhaps even working with the Martin family to establish a foundation in Trayvon’s name. No matter what, Wrigley can’t be the company to make the announcement. It has to be the beneficiary that takes the most spotlight for this. Accusations of greed or capitalizing on a tragedy could make dents in the company it would take a long time to recover from.

    •  @MattLaCasse I like the idea of a scholarship fund. I think this would be a good approach and gesture no matter what the case. And if done carefully, this could help keep the company from getting immersed in the controversial issues of politics, race and ethics while still honoring the increase in sales due to this tragedy. 

      • ginidietrich

         @rachaelseda  @MattLaCasse I like this idea, too, but I’m still not convinced they have to do anything. We are, after all, in business to make money. Or maybe that’s just the capitalist in me.

        •  @ginidietrich  @rachaelseda I’m not married to the idea that they HAVE to do something. However, getting increased sales because someone made a political gaffe is a little different than increased sales because a teenager got shot. I know they didn’t ask for this, and did nothing to deserve it, but some small gesture certainly doesn’t hurt them and turns a needless spotlight from them back to the community.

  • jgombita

    @dconconi to be honest I don’t see how these two things are related. (I don’t remember hearing about the Skittles connection in Cdn. media.)

    • dconconi

      @jgombita not related. Just also interesting.

      • jgombita

        @dconconi think this issue is incredibly serious in regards to “legalized” racism; simply don’t see a huge connection to Skittles/marketing.

        • dconconi

          @jgombita agreed. But look at the pressure being applied to Skittles marketing…

        • jgombita

          @dconconi the difference is that the “bad thing” originated on a Belvedere vodka “property.” Skittles is part of an effect, NOT the cause.

  • Pingback: NCAA can’t spell, sex sells and PEEPS!()

  • “It’s a crisis where people on the social networks are telling you how to run your company.”
     
    That’s key. And just because a loud group of people on Twitter or wherever are demanding you do something, it doesn’t mean you do it. Nobody forced those people to buy the Skittles. Skittles sure didn’t advocate using their product in the manner they are. And no it’s their fault that sales are up because of a community based initiative?
     
    While I received my Bachelor’s in PR, I admit, I speak from a bit of ignorance as I don’t have any formal PR experience, but I’ll give my two cents, whether they’re worth that much or not:
     
    Wrigley is a subsidiary of Mars, Inc. And Mars donates a ton of money every year to various initiatives. A cursory Google search shows this:
     
    http://www.mars.com/global/press-center/press-list/news-releases.aspx?SiteId=94&Id=1670
    http://www.marsfood.com/community/donation-info/
    http://www.candyindustry.com/articles/mars-inc-publishes-principals-in-action
    http://www.snickers.com/default.htm
    http://www.csnews.com/top-story-community_service_spotlight-60650.html
     
    As the PR agency handling Mars, I’d remind my client of that. And, if the pressure became high enough (it’s tough for me gauge it at the moment as I just haven’t followed the story in detail), I may consider issuing a statement reminding the public of Mar’s continued track record within those communities, issue our sincerest condolences for the family, and express our deepest hopes that the most pure form of justice will prevail. I wouldn’t suggest budging on a dime. Mars doesn’t owe anybody anything, and the precedent it sets with the public demand is not good for company. I may even highlight the fact that singling this issue out, when they are 1,000’s of other families who lose a son every year in the projects of New Orleans, Houston, New York, LA, etc. and receive zero recognition or monetary support, would be completely unfair.
     
    But that’s just me.

    • Typos. Galore. My apologies.

      • ginidietrich

         @JMattHicks Seems like you know someone who can figure out how to let you edit your comment! 🙂
         
        Wrigley, too, does a lot of community service. A LOT. But someone brought up a really good point. He said they aren’t making extra money or extra profits because what’s on the shelf is what’s on the shelf. Now, if they run out of product they can either make more candy or not. There are pros and cons to both, of course, but they’ve reported their projections for the year and, unless the stores run out and they make more candy, it won’t affect their share price.
         
        That said, it’s a very interesting case study on how our customers now demand how we run our businesses. 

        •  @ginidietrich Very valid point, one I hadn’t considered yet. But interesting case study indeed. I’m all for customer interaction, transparency, and using feedback…but that seems to have been take to the extreme these days as the customer is not always right nor are the the CEO. It’ll be interesting to see how this one finally pans out as well.
           
          And yes, I indeed do know someone who could figure that out, in fact, they’ve figured out how to make it possible in the very near future, my friend 🙂

  • vikkiorlando

    I think it’s horrible that groups are calling for them to donate anything. They’re running a business. They had nothing to do with the incident. Period. We all have had business successes, many based on the tragedy of others (Competitor goes bankrupt, etc.) Once again people feel the need to take their anger out on the wrong entity. Donate some of your own money if you support these organizations. Don’t try to bully/guilt an innocent bystander in this.

  • Pingback: Is It Time To Stop Listening to Social Media? by @elissapr | Spin Sucks()

  • Pingback: Is It Time To Stop Listening to Social Media? « MindCorp | Newsfeed()

  • Juliwilson789

    I am
    really glad to be here.I hope to see more great articles here in the future
    too so keep it up and good luck to all of you! http://www.kao-ji.net

  • nancytex

    It is
    really a nice and useful piece of information. I am glad that you shared this
    helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thank you
    for sharing.http://www.probusiness4u.org

  • philipshaun

    well,
    this is an amazing thing that I found here. You tried best to achieve your
    thoughts. http://www.kstechnic.com

360 Shares
Buffer
Tweet212
Share50
Share66
+132
[postmatic_subscribe_widget]
[postmatic_subscribe_widget]